Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25

(closed) Proposed removal: Grammys

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

So we're now in the fourth (?) consecutive year when no-one cares enough about the Grammys to update the article sufficiently for ITN. That it's ITNR is now seriously debatable. We've had discussions, even as recently as last year, about removing it from ITN/R, but as nothing seems to have changed, and there's no appetite to actually do anything about the articles in question, we should debate it one more time. In summary, I propose removing the Grammys from ITN/R since evidence over the past four years has shown that it is of such little consequence that the articles have never been brought up to the required standard. Let it compete with all the other ITN candidates in future years. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd wait until the current nom falls off the page, and if there's clearly no signs of improvement on the article, then this is a fully reasonable action. --Masem (t) 22:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
For reference these are the two previous discussions I found in the archive:
  • Support removal, and a "three strikes and you're out' rule to automatically remove annual items from ITN/R on three consecutive non-postings due to quality. Stephen 00:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't support autoremove on a three strikes approach (eg what if people did try to update it but consensus was split on the quality, during one year?) I do see no problems that if there's three years recurring event in ITNR wasn't posted, that's enough to start the discussion for removal, just not an automatic thing. --Masem (t) 00:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove, as my position was a year ago. 331dot (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep from the WP:ITNR page, "Items which are listed on this page are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur." So I fail to see where this objection is coming from. Any argument to remove something from ITNR has to argue that it's not important, and lack of updates doesn't mean it's not important. For example if we have an election in Burkina Faso and it's not posted, it could just simply be because we don't have many Burkina Faso editors. There is no drawback to having this still on ITNR either, because it just won't be posted anyway if it hasn't been updated. Banedon (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
    Point missed, see plenty of evidence below. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove You're missing the point. Not getting posted doesn't make it unimportant per se. It is rather symptomatic of a change in perception of the event. Annual events do rise and wan in significance. The Grammys have long been a joke to many. ghost 14:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as my position was a year ago. This is premature, we posted some Australian golf or cricket or rugby or something that was in dismal shape when it was nominated. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Four straight years of failed posting is not premature. (WaltCip, logged out) -- (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't follow your comments LaserLegs (once again). Keep because something else was posted after being in dismal shape? Grammys haven't been posted for years, no-one cares, no-one gives a shit, no-one has even commented at ITN/C or even noted its absence at the main page. It's abundantly clear that the traditional view of Grammys being worth something is dead in the water. Nothing here constitutes any kind of realistic "keep" beyond "ILIKEIT". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I just think that nominating an item for removal from ITNR before it's finished it's run at ITNC is premature. Is that clear enough? I can upload a flow chart with some stick figures to commons if need be. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Because WP:TIND. When somebody nominated it, we should encourage them to make updates. Our goal is to recruit more editors. This is a chance for somebody to help out with the topic. Our failure does not make the event unimportant. It’s importance does not depend on us. Jehochman Talk 02:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
    It's continued lack of satisfactory updates over the years is symptomatic that the community do not consider it of importance, and more importantly, I'm not seeing all the US readers up in arms about it not being there. Frankly, no-one cares about the Grammys, and that's why its inclusion at ITNR is pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Concur with the argument that lack of update does not mean an event suddenly loses its importance (what made it ITN/R in the first place). It simply shows that a handful of those who know how to edit are no longer interested in it or circumstances result in them not updating it it and that's quite different from what's happening in the real world. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
It's a misconception that prior consensus existed to add items to ITNR in the first place. Check out Archive 1; there's people adding stuff unilaterally. ghost 14:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid, this is a Straw man response, completely off topic to what I said. I never claim 100 people found consensus to add the item in the first place, and even the proposal itself, in no way questions whether there was consensus to add the item in the first place. It's just seeking a new consensus to remove. If you're challenging the validity of how the item got added in the first place you should do so in a new proposal please; because it's completely different issue. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Also WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS applies. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Banedon. Regardless of any "change in perception" of the event, the Grammys are still a major event which receive significant attention from the media and public. ITNR is meant to facilitate debate over possible ITN entries by eliminating the need to argue about their importance, not their quality. --PlasmaTwa2 17:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: actually, there's plenty of coverage in reliable sources which adequately demonstrate that the general public are really becoming disinterested in this industry navel-gazing exercise. E.g. Variety examines the massive drop in viewership over the past five years, The New Yorker's analysis of it being "meaningless", while The Guardian provides a critical view of all such events. There's no doubt at all that these events (particularly the Grammys) are of nowhere near the significance or interest that they may have been five or so years ago, or even when they were surreptitiously added to the ITNR list in the first place. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Yeah, the problem is not that the article didn't get updated (all the awards were marked within the hour of the ceremony), but that no editor on that page seems to care about the details related to the broader picture. At ITN everyone knows that we won't post a sports finale result without some process, and most are nominated after that's done, plus the rest of the article is fleshed out too. There's plenty of things that could have been added to the Grammys article before the ceremony beyond nominees, but no one bothered to do so. It because a waste of time to have it on ITNR if there's zero interest in updates. --Masem (t) 18:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
      • How is it a waste of time to have it on ITNR if there's zero interest in updates? In the same vein, consider the reverse situation: suppose it's not on ITNR, there's zero interest in updates, and it's nominated anyway. How is that not a waste of time? Banedon (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
        • Consider how much of a waste of time this is. And this is only happening because Grammys was unilaterally added to the ITNR list years back. Each year it becomes less significant, nobody can be bothered to update it, nobody has noted that it's missing from the main page, it's not ITNR-worthy and constitutes a waste of effort every year that people try to insist that it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal Think TRM has hit the nail on the head. The event may be notable but the article and related articles are barely touched, winners are lazily bolded but there's no effort to make the article easy to read, getting it to the front page seems less and less of a priority. There's no reason to keep this event on ITNR if such a status has only made editors complacent or worse. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal - I can't think of many other ITN/R events where there is an utter failure to update the article year-after-year. The Super Bowl goes up within hours after the final score owing to a cavalcade of updates. The Grammys stagnate, as they have year after year. Items on ITN/R are assumed to satisfy the criterion of importance. Importance can be inferred from the amount of activity an article receives, and really, the amount of attention the event garners (which as TRM has pointed out is tumbling lower each year). TRM is the ONLY person who has responded to the nom on ITN/C since it went up two days ago! The reality is staring us in the face; no one cares enough about this event to garner its inclusion on ITN/R, much less update it sufficiently to get it posted onto the main page. (WaltCip, logged out) -- (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
There is also every reason to think that the Grammys themselves are decreasing in importance; viewership is consistently decreasing, I believe. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Banedon. Removing from ITN/R would simply further dis-incentivize people from updating the page. Davey2116 (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I don’t see the logic in judging an event’s significance on how much work editors put into it. They seem separate things to me. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Here's a theorhetical - would we be inclined to post the Boat Race if TRM/other editors did little to make sure it was at quality immediately shortly after the event? I'm myself confident that would be "yes", as otherwise all we have the implied significance of the race. The routine improvement of articles for the ITNR topics are an essential part in addition to the topic's significance, and the failure for an existing ITNR to show those improvements after 3-4 years is a sign to remove. --Masem (t) 20:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
      • I don't know how others interpret it, but I'd argue that if the Boat Race is significant, it'd remain significant even if nobody updates it; similarly "because the article is always updated every year!" is not an argument for significance, in fact it's more or less completely irrelevant in a discussion about whether the Boat Race should be ITNR. Banedon (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove Forget abstract encyclodpeadic ideas about significance here - ITN is a service to the user base, to highlight articles of interest that pertain to current events. If there is little enough natural activity on a topic to whip the articles into shape clearly the level of interest is limited and it has no right to special exposure on the front page as of right. Users are are not interested, and ITN is not the place for fancruft of particular groups who want "their" topic covered. Nor is it a forum to tell users what they "should" be interested in. This all means there are no grounds for a guaranteed spot on ITN. 3142 (talk) 09:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Being on ITNR isn't being guaranteed a spot on ITN - the target article(s) still need to be updated. Banedon (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep – If an important article is not being updated, that is likely an indication that there is a gap in the diversity of our user base. It is no coincidence that, as the most popular genre at the Grammys changes from Rock to Hip-Hop, interest among Wikipedia editors dwindled. We are ill-served by removing this and any incentive we can offer to new users interested in this subject. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Do space probes need to arrive in working condition to be ITNR?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Currently ITNR has this line: "Arrival of probes (to lunar orbit and beyond) at their destinations". The Beresheet spacecraft arrived, it just didn't arrive in working order. Do we consider this ITNR? If not, I advocate adjusting the line to say that the probe must be in working condition. Banedon (talk) 02:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  • I don't think we need to change it. As I said in the nomination, sending stuff to the Moon is still a big deal. What does it matter if it is working? It did take one picture before it crashed. If it had blown up on the pad, it would be ITNR as a launch failure. It should not matter if it made it there before failing. 331dot (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • That discussion is a misunderstanding of what the mission objectives were. One of the objectives was to achieve lunar orbit. The fact that the aim to land safely was not achieved does not take away from that. As they said "We are the seventh country to orbit the moon and the fourth to reach the moon's surface". A spacecraft successfully attaining orbit around another astronomical body is in itself a major achievement, and should be ITN/R. The spacecraft was in working order when it arrived at the Moon. Additionally, there are likely of examples of crashed or failed spacecraft arrivals at other planets that were put on ITN, quite possibly as ITN/R. The one that I was thinking of was Beagle 2, but that might only have been on ITN when its crash site was discovered later. Maybe others can list planetary space missions where the arrival of the spacecraft in orbit (with or without a lander) was featured on ITN? Carcharoth (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The space exploration ITNR is far too broadly written, which is bothersome because it doesn't have a link to the discussion which approved it. Case in point - "Launch failures where sufficient details are available to update the article" has no qualification for WHAT was launched. LITERALLY anything that was launched for the purposes of exploring space would qualify, including the Beresheet. So had it failed at launch it would be ITNR, but since it failed at landing it's open for discussion? GreatCaesarsGhost 14:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I believe the space exploration section was one of the first parts of the ITNR list when it was created, and it has sort of stayed there by default and precedence. I'm fairly sure changes to it have been discussed before(and I might have even participated) but I don't recall those discussions at this moment. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Space probes are few and far between, so that any arrival, dead or alive, should make news. Maybe 20 years from now, when we routinely fly to Mars, we can reconsider the rule. — JFG talk 14:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Do midterm elections count as ITNR as defined?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The United States (2018) and the Philippines (2019) have upcoming midterm elections where the presidency is not at stake, while all seats in the lower house and some in the upper house are, with local elections in both countries on the same day as the national election, as well. Do these elections count as "The results of general elections in All states on the List of sovereign states"? Howard the Duck (talk) 02:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Apparently not, given the row that we had back in 2014 about this very issue.--WaltCip (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Would we see similar arguments opposing the U.S. election in November? Howard the Duck (talk) 02:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
A general election is one in which all seats in the legislative body are being contested. It does not require the position of president or head of state to be involved, and local elections on the same day are irrelevant. If the entire lower house is involved in those elections, I think that would qualify. It's not entirely straightforward when the upper house is also an elected body and only partially contested, but an entire lower house is good enough for me. Modest Genius talk 15:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
The one caveat is that we generally don't post legislative elections when combined with the first step of a two-step presidential election, like the recent election in Brazil. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
That's odd. Why shouldn't we post the legislative election when it happens, then a new blurb for the separate election of a president a few weeks later? Modest Genius talk 09:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Interesting. Do we post legislative elections if it doesn't affect who'd be the head of government? Brazil uses a presidential system, and this was one of the points raised in the 2014 US elections nomination. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Also, for legislative elections that occur on the same day as the presidential election, someone in WP:WPE&R is on personal crusade to keep all elections under one "general election" article with no splits no matter what. This means the legislative elections are usually ignored in favor of the presidential one, which is a pity. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
As our own article notes, the term general election has different meaning depending on where you are, so this is another case of ITNR shooting ITNC in the foot. Common sense would hold that the term "general"[1] serves as to distinguish from "special," that being an election where a single office or issue is being decided. This election will choose 87% of the US Congress, 72% of state governors, and over half of state legislators. (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Maybe we should define it like that: for ITNR, an election that determines the country's head of state and/or where more than 50% of the legislative body at the national level is being voted on. I can imagine there are cases of "general elections" where only a small fraction of legislative seats are at stake which wouldn't really be ITNC. --Masem (t) 14:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Replace the Boat Race with the World Rowing Championships, or another globally representative event

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Boat Race is by definition an exclusive and exclusionary event. I have not seen evidence that it is the top-tier event in the sport of Rowing. The selection of this event as ITNR appears to be a by-product of Wikipedia:Systemic bias. As contrast, an argument can be made that the best athletes in basketball would have an opportunity to participate in the NBA Finals, an ITNR item. A similar argument cannot be made for the Boat Race. To participate in the Boat Race, a skillful athlete in rowing would have to first earn admittance to one of only two highly-selective and expensive universities. The university's criteria for admittance presummably goes beyond skill in this sport unlike other ITNR items which allow reasonable admittance to the event based on skill. (See also Harvard–Yale Regatta)--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose by default (the annual nomination!). There's literally nothing of substance in the opening argument beyond "IDONTLIKETHIS" and as we've seen, for the past few years, the articles submitted are of Good, if not Featured Article quality, the audience on the day is in the hundreds of thousands live, tens of millions globally, and the OP attempting to understand the "admittance criteria" for Oxbridge is hilarious. "Expensive" universities, do you actually know how university education in the UK works? The "see also" is particularly embarrassing. Of course, there's no need to "replace" anything here. If the OP genuinely believes another rowing article should be at ITNR, then nominate that for inclusion. It's not one-in/one-out! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal, much as it pains me. Don't get me wrong, I would love to remove TBR for all the reasons you give, but this section is "In The News" not "Important Things". For whatever reason TBR does get orders of magnitude more media interest, and a much larger TV audience, than any other rowing event outside the Olympics. (Adding that I'm also baffled by "expensive universities". Coffeeandcrumbs, you are aware that Britain isn't in the US?) ‑ Iridescent 21:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment — The opposes above have latched on to my minor misguided points and ignored my major arguments. ThisThe item's inclusion is clearly WP:Systemic bias. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – The comment above has latched on to your clearly misguided argument and disagree with you. This is clearly WP:CONSENSUS. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Let us see if this is still the consensus. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) How's that "systemic bias", now? There are only two people opposing you thus far, and we're from places 5700 km apart. What part of this section is "In The News" not "Important Things" are you having a problem with? I'm well aware that this is nowhere near the top level in terms of skill; I'm also well aware that this is the only rowing event that gets a global audience and front page photos on newspapers. ‑ Iridescent 21:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
    I was only saying the selection of this event is systemic bias. I would never accuse an editor of systemic bias because that is nonsensical. A single editor or even two cannot have systemic bias because that is not what systemic means and all editors are biased including me. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
    I'm not clear what you mean by systemic bias in that case. If two completely disparate editors both agree this is worth keeping, how does "systemic bias" play a part? Can you scratch that from your accusations please. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
    The Wikipedia project strives for a neutral point of view in its coverage of subjects, both in terms of the articles that are created and the content, perspective and sources within these articles. However, this goal is inhibited by systemic bias created by the shared social and cultural characteristics of most editors, and it results in an imbalanced coverage of subjects and perspectives on the encyclopedia. (some emphasis added) --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
    Well, once again, you seem to be floundering and copy/pasting from another page doesn't help make your position any stronger (the opposite, in fact). The point, already made, is that there's little "shared social and cultural characteristics" between me and Iridescent, yet we both agree you're completely wrong. Is that clear enough? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
    Are you sure it's 5,700 kilometres (3,500 mi)? Let me know where you are and I'll factualise that assertion. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment just as an aside, these "highly selective" universities, such as "OXFORD" (dark blue, disgusting), are actually making huge changes to admittance so you can scratch that too. I imagine if we had a spare fifteen minutes, we'd manage to scratch most of your opening statement. Is there a reason you think for ITNR, an item has to be the top-tier event in the sport of Rowing? Where is that requirement stated at ITNR? For instance, The Ashes is never considered the "top tier-event in the sport of cricket". Is that next up for removal? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Based on several past attempts to remove Boat Race, I'm convinced it is one of the premiere events in rowing. So there's no reason that the Rowing Championships can't also be on the ITNR list, except that when I see the state of the yearly articles 2018 World Rowing Championships, that's a looong way from the quality we'd expect for an ITN. --Masem (t) 21:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
    Quite so. It's evident right from the get-go that this is a pointed nomination as it immediately seeks to replace the Boat Race with an "unnamed" rowing event, rather than simply augment ITNR with a second prominent rowing event. Plain for all to see. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. This gets far more attention than the World Championship of rowing, both in media and live(well over 200,000 watch it in person). This is also a major cultural event. We can certainly discuss having the World Championship too, but not at this listing's expense. 331dot (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I wonder if it's time to place an embargo on this kind of time-wasting. As noted above, we've gone through this charade half a dozen times in the past couple of years, same result. What a waste of the community's time. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd support that, provided there were an exemption for a genuine change in circumstances (e.g. someone presenting clear evidence that there were numerous other rowing events which were more popular than TBR—it's not the case now, but it's not impossible that a promoter could set up a high-profile Rowing Champions League or the like). In the event that the men's and women's races cease to be run on the same day, there would probably be a legitimate case to be made that the women's event isn't the premier event in women's rowing, as I suspect a substantial chunk of its audience consists of people attending the men's race or watching it on TV who treat the women's race as a warm-up act. ‑ Iridescent 22:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • For sure, I'm only talking about reducing the number of times this can be nominated for removal down to perhaps once a year? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
The Boat Race has not been challenged since 2016. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Because it's the shiznitch! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
For those unfamiliar with the Oxbridge admissions policy, I can clarify that Ramblo is referring to "unfair advantage" here. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's a major and recurring sporting event that gets tons of coverage. That's what ITNR is for. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal and maybe check the archives next time to see if this has been discussed before (hint: it has, a lot). Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment to be fair to the OP, despite the errors in the opening statement, we could consider adding World Rowing Championships, or similar, to ITNR. If that would make everyone feel better? I don't recall a time ever in the past 15 years where this event has been nominated/posted but happy to be proved wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn per SNOW. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Support as nominator --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Meh. Looking at the actual articles, none of the last five championships have been of a fit state to post, as they've all consisted solely of a brief paragraph about the selection of the venue, followed by a medal table. Unless there's someone actually interested in writing the articles (hint: this is what a rowing article should look like, this is what the article on the last WRC looks like), there's no real point having the discussion. ‑ Iridescent 22:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose let's see a couple of successful nominations and take it from there. Stephen 23:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this point due to poor article qualify of last several years. --Masem (t) 23:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as far as I can recall, they've never been featured once at ITNC so why it would need to waltz straight to INTR is completely beyond me. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The event should follow the normal process and be posted for some years with a little fuss before we move to this level. – Ammarpad (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As others have said, this should go through ITNC at least once before we consider listing it on ITNR. I'm not even sure it's been nominated previously. Calidum 03:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed removal: European Parliament elections

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Since Coffeeandcrumbs pointed out on the relevant WP:ITNC nomination that this item is ITN/R, I'm posting this here since the past 2011 consensus to include this on ITN/R is shaky at best. Largely symbolic election, not particularly noteworthy nor deserving of an automatic pass.--WaltCip (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Cautious keep while largely symbolic, it does involve an electorate of hundreds of millions. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak remove. The EP is a toothless body that exists solely to rubber-stamp decisions made by the Commission and Council, and elections to it are rarely significant (the 42% turnout is artificially inflated by those countries where voting is compulsory, and by countries which use the elections as a proxy for referenda; in other EU countries it can drop well below 20%); although there are a lot of people voting, what's happening in practice is 28 different countries choosing delegates to send to a transnational talking-shop, rather than an election in the sense in which it's usually understood. If there's a particular significance to any given election that makes it actually in the news rather than a brief note in the inside politics pages (as I write this, even in Britain, the country where the EU is a particularly sensitive issue, the elections aren't mentioned above the fold on the BBC News website), or even if we just think the article is particularly good, we can always still run it as per the usual ITN process; given that the earliest another of these things can happen is 2024 it's not like it will flood ITNC. ‑ Iridescent 20:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Geographical requirements are quite common in elections. In a way, elections to the US congress is also just 50 different states choosing delegates to send to a national talking-shop. ― Heb the best (talk) 04:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
The reason the elections are not mentioned prominently at the moment on the BBC front page is because the results are not counted and announced until Sunday, and because the PM made a recent statement that is more newsworthy... (confirming her pending resignation). Carcharoth (talk) 09:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal, the EP is the body that the EU voters actually elect directly, as opposed to other functions. The way the seats are distributed will determine who will be the next head etc. So this is totally not symbolic. --Tone 20:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. The EP have grown increasingly influential since the founding of the EU. In 2014 they managed to make Jean-Claude Juncker head of the commission through the spitzenkandidat system. If they manages to do that again, only time will tell. While in no EU country the elections are regarded as more important than general elections, the fact that these are happens simultaneously in the entire EU, makes them highly significant. ― Heb the best (talk) 04:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal - the European Parliament is more relevant now than it used to be, and becoming more so. Carcharoth (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. Per Carcharoth, Heb the best and Tone. The elections are also by several orders of magnitude the most important supranational elections in the world. Thryduulf (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal I have a hard time believing that major reliable news outlets would not continue covering these elections in the future. --Jayron32 15:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sports Ongoing

The introducrion to the Sports section states that the Football World Cup is the only non-Olympic or Commonwealth sporting event to be listed as ongoing. However, it appears that the Cricket World Cup is currently lsited as ongoing. I didn't make any changes at this point, since I couldn't find the discussion establishing it as an ongoing event. However, I thought that it was a circumstance worthy of comment. Cwilson97 (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  • @Cwilson97: - the Cricket World Cup was added by consensus at WP:ITN/C, rather than through ITN/R, where it is eligible for a blurb following its conclusion. I have amended the passage to reflect this. Thanks, Stormy clouds (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Remove Man Booker International Prize

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can't find the discussion where it was decided that this should be ITN/R (probably part of the arbitrary initial batch). Since it failed to get an update this year, it's worth discussing if it should even be ITN/R. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you advocate for its removal or just want a review? (Just curious) 331dot (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm advocating for removal, but a keep consensus would reaffirm this items ITN/R status. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep; the Booker is one of the few literary prizes that's actually taken seriously outside the bubble (the winner generally at least gets a mention on the television news and respectable print coverage in Commonwealth countries, and the awards ceremony is televised live in the UK itself). If you're in the mood for culling the "literature" section, the International Dublin Literary Award and the Hugo Award could probably both do with reappraisal; nobody cares about the IDLA (unlike the Booker, which does in my experience prompt a "Booker shortlisted books" section in every high street bookshop), while the Hugo is important within its small niche but of no interest at all to anyone outside it (only one of this years nominees even has a Wikipedia article). ‑ Iridescent 20:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
So the main reason this is here is that no one bothered to get the article anywhere near ready this year, and it's only the "international" prize which I'm asking about (which has been around less than 15 years). No contention with any of your points, just clarifying. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove keep the main prize, the other hasn't demonstrated why it should be ITNR by any means. Per LaserLegs, it was arbitrarily added back in July 2008 by the snappily named "Renamed user ixgysjijel" (I know). The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove @Iridescent: your comment really makes it seem like you are referring to the main prize rather than the international. Can you please confirm? GreatCaesarsGhost 19:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep – The nominations that have come from it have only failed to be posted because of article quality. Removing the award from ITNR is counter productive. We would only making it less likely that editors will try to edit the winner's article. I have not heard a good argument that this prize is insignificant. ITNR items are still evaluated upon nomination to see if they meet quality standards. So what exactly is the harm of having a significant award listed at ITNR? So what if it fails year after year? The point is to build a good encyclopedia. Even if editors fail, I would rather they tried every year because, while they are chasing the ITN carrot, Wikipedia benefits. Some day they will succeed. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
    Classic WP:NOHARM argument. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
    On the contrary, I am arguing that removing it is harmful to this project. You on the hand are using the classic straw man; latching on to the weakest point and ignoring the major point. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
    Not at all. Your argument was positioned on there being no harm in this always-overlooked article remaining on ITNR. And nominations have only failed because of article quality because this is ITNR and article quality is the only thing which would prevent it being posted. Seriously... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    So what exactly is preventing it from being posted if not article quality? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    Lack of interest in the event itself. It's clearly a borderline ITNR case, and as noted, no-one ever voted it in. So this will need consensus to keep it in rather than remove it in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    Exactly lack of interest from ITN/Wikipedia editors, also known as systemic bias. A simple google search shows there is no lack of interest from RS. How is removing it from ITNR a solution? How does that benefit our goal of building a great Wikipedia? Why are you advocating making ITN less diverse? We make the rules; the rules don't make us. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    You're putting words in my mouth (or on my keyboard). There's absolutely no reason this can't be promoted every year at ITNC. It doesn't need an ITNR free pass. You're continuing down the NOHARM route, and it's not doing you any fasvours at all I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    Then the question is simple. I don't care how it got on the ITNR list because it satisfies the criterion: Items which are listed on [ITNR] are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur. No one here has offered an argument against its "importance". I see no reason to remove it except wiki-lawyering and arguments of process. Removing it is harmful to this project and contributes to continued systemic bias on ITN. I can't help but notice that what you called "the main prize" seems almost exclusively awarded to books from the UK and former UK colonies. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    I'm not interested at all in your perceived interpretation of my motivations. In fact, they're a disgrace, but say no more. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    Now you are putting words in my keyboard. I never said anything about your motivations. I spoke only of your actions: "you advocating making ITN less diverse". --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    Disgusting. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep It's in the news every year outside wikipedia, it seems the main reason it doesn't get included here is article quality, not because it's not newsworthy VJ (talk) 09:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove - If no one can be bothered to bring the article up to speed for posting, then its notability is questionable at best. Time for it to go.--WaltCip (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep If the main Booker is ITN/R, so should the international as the two are related. I don't see a reason to separate them for ITN purposes.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
    • So you're saying we should wait until the winners of both are announced in international years and post them as a combined blurb? --LaserLegs (talk) 03:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Unconvinced with the OP's statement. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Target article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Unless otherwise noted, the winner of the prize is normally the target article." Can we strike the word "normally" to remove the wiggle room on this? There seem to be general consensus on this point, but periodically we post the award article when the winner is not up to snuff, and this standard should be applied across the board (bearing in mind IAR can always override). GreatCaesarsGhost 12:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Support just do it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm OK with posting and article about the prize or the work if and when there isn't another option. Our first choice should be the winner as the target, but I don't see the problem of another, closely related article, is of high quality.--Jayron32 17:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Jayron32, ITN is about showcasing articles be they the prize, the winner, or the work. Stephen 00:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:SLOP. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
No, it's a solution to a realized problem, as noted: "periodically we post the award article when the winner is not up to snuff." Some editors contribute with the rules in mind, others go rule-shopping to get whatever they are personally interested in posted. There is no value in posting an old chart with a one line update once a year. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – The whole point of this project, as I understand it, is not to announce news events; it is to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest. ITN supports the central purpose of Wikipedia—making a great encyclopedia. (See WP:ITN) Pointing our readers to minor change to a prize article does not accomplish this goal. It also does not support the goal of making our encyclopedia better. The winner of the prize, either the work or the author, should be the focus of our efforts of improvement. The recognition of that effort is the inclusion of a bold link on the Main Page. In any case, "normally" means nothing in context. It is an unnecessary ambiguity prone to abuse. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The award article feels like a shortcut to doing any work when a notable award is won. I recognize there are cases where the work or person receiving the award are in a location in the world where it will be difficult to find english sources in a few days, so we can IAR to the award article in such cases, but if it is possible write that article (as all of these awards are signs of meeting notability requirements) with a small amount of effort it should be done. --Masem (t) 20:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the current wording is correct in that the winner is normally the best target but there are exceptions - for example if the prize is won by a team/collaboration that is not notable outside the work there will not normally be a separate article, similarly where there is not enough biographical information about the winner available to write a stand-alone article (especially if it's a debut work by a very private person from a non-English-speaking part of the world). In other cases the update comes on a breakout article rather than the main bio. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support the abnormal cases are "otherwise noted" therefore "normally" is redundant and potentially confusing. This is an easy fix. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    • What is "otherwise noted" is where every instance of the award goes to somewhere other than the winner, e.g. "Primetime Emmy Award (Best Comedy and Best Drama) (year's award article)". This is completely different to exceptions to the usual rule for awards that normally target the winner, which cannot be "otherwise noted" as it depends on the individual circumstances of each instance of each award. Thryduulf (talk) 03:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Remove La Liga and Bundesliga

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

With all the insisting last year on the importance of these events, neither La Liga, Bundesliga nor Serie A were even nominated, and if they had been, the articles are not up to scratch. They had their chance, time to remove. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose Quoting from the ITNR guidelines, "Items which are listed on this page are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur." The guidelines don't say anything about how articles about "important" topics must always have been updated or they cease to be important topics. Neither does it say "important" topics have to be nominated or they cease to be important. As with the proposal to remove the Grammys some time ago, any argument to remove these must be based on how they are no longer important, and no arguments have been given. Banedon (talk) 12:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
At least with the Grammys, there was actual published evidence of declining year-over-year viewership and declining relevance among key demographics.--WaltCip (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
This is about soccer folks, not about an awards ceremony in a certain country. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the consensus reached last year was that the Bundesliga and La Liga had a sufficient amount of significance to justify listing on ITN/R, and that Serie A would need to demonstrate its ability to have a postable article at ITN/C before considering its status on ITN/R. Clearly, there is still no justification to list the Serie A on ITN/R, but one year without posting, following years in which the leagues were posted, is similarly not justification to remove the leagues, when there is nothing to suggest the significance of the leagues has diminished. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removing Bundesliga, La Liga is certainly more popular, arguably more notable, and we need to think of the readers. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal: Emmy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On and off for the past six years, the Emmys have either not been posted to ITN, or have been posted but with extraordinarily lackluster updates. Here again in 2019, it has been nominated, but the article is cluttered uselessly with tables with barely any prose. Despite a couple days of waiting and a litany of oppose !votes, there seems to be no interest in updating the article - which once again brings up the question as to why this is an ITN/R item if the interest to update it clearly does not exist.

Yes, I get it's been around for years. Yes, I get that it was once significant. But amidst record low Nielsen ratings and an apparent lack of interest among Wikipedians in maintaining the relevant articles, it's time -- yet again -- to consider its removal from ITN/R.--WaltCip (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I would agree on the principle that "no one bothers to update so fails ITNR", but we had that same issue with the Grammy's recently [2] and I feel this will end in the same boat. I wonder if its better to establish that for something to be listed and stay at ITNR that the article should have at least reasonable attempts to bring it to a postable quality year-after-year, with events that are table-prone (most sporting championships and award competitions) are expected to have significantly more content than tables added to them a reasonably time after the conclusion of the event. The attempt may not be sufficient and thus may not be posted, but key is that the attempt was made to add prose above and beyond adding stats to tables. If that doesn't happen for a few years in a row (like here for Emmys), that should be valid grounds to remove. --Masem (t) 17:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep — There are many awards on ITN/R that people don't even bother to nominate at all like Dadasaheb Phalke Award and many others like Pritzker Prize that fail year after year. I think it is better for us instead to allow the winner of the prize to be the target article. Fleabag and Game of Thrones would have made great targets to link to from ITN. The simple fact of the matter is that these award articles work better as lists. The actual award ceremony is not important and there is very little notable to say about the ceremony. What is important is the award winner. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
    • This might be another thing to clarify elsewhere. Where there is a series of awards with a major public ceremony - Emmys, Oscars, BAFTAs, etc., where numerous individuals are being honored, it is expected that the award page is the target and should be updated; to make making the focus as the noted winners does a disservice to all the other winners, and buries the fact that the award page is not ready. Whereas we have other awards like the Nobels and other more academic awards, where there is a "ceremony" of sorts but it is most to honor one or a few individuals, then the focus of the blurb should be on the individuals awarded and not the award itself (as what else is there to talk about?) This probably should be clarified in the ITNR list. --Masem (t) 19:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
      Masem, this is the best explanation of the difference I have ever read. This should be the guideline we use. I stand corrected. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Bundesliga --LaserLegs (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
So... WP:OTHERCRAPSHOULDNTEXISTBUTDOES?--WaltCip (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I mean, if you can't compare instances of ITN/R items that weren't even nominated much less adequately updated then what can you do? BTW I've left a question at the nom for this years Emmys if you have any feedback I'd welcome it. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Hmm, it appears now it's hard to remove an item from ITNR even if it's clearly repeatedly not being posted. This largely makes ITNR less useful overall. – Ammarpad (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
    That's why I suggested we may need to rework the ITNR requirements to start, and then we can talk removal of these specific ones. --Masem (t) 19:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
    We really need to revisit these requirements. Some ancient stuff need to be removed and to incorporate your suggestion in reply to Coffeeandcrumbs above. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I'll continue to oppose Waltcip's annual attempt to remove this (and the Grammys) from ITN/R. As I've said before I don't believe that the lack of prose written by Wikipedia editors is an indication of how significant the event is. Nor are Nielsen ratings because many people will follow these ceremonies via social media.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – I think we are ready to post now. I have added prose sufficient for what we need at ITN/C. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - since this was updated (thanks Coffeeandcrumbs (talk · contribs)) it seems the central thesis for removal is no longer valid. Suggest close. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I withdraw on account of there actually being an update, finally.--WaltCip (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suggestion: Add elections of presidency or equivalent of major political/supranational unions

I would recommend that if we are including general elections to something like the European Parliament then we should also include elections that name the equivalent of the president/head of state for that body, like in this case President of the European Commission. I know there are a few more of these in the world as listed on Supranational union, so if we need to be selective to the big ones (EU primarily) we can decide the specifics. ETA: At minimum, I am specifically suggesting adding the election of the President of the EC as an ITNR; all other unions need more discussion but should be considered which can be discussed as well. --Masem (t) 18:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment I think this needs to be specific, e.g. I would support the President of the EU commission, but I'm not clear on the ramifications of supporting this proposal beyond that. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Limiting it just to the President of EC makes sense since we also specifically call out the general election of the EP. If we do eventually add any other supranational unions, we should make sure elections of both the lawmaking body and the executive body (if such exist in that structure) are both included as intended, but see no problem just doing the EU at this time. --Masem (t) 19:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this is a good idea as long as we leave opening for any other supranational organization like the African Union if and when it achieves similar levels of structure and power over the laws of its constituent sovereign nations, and holds general elections in a similar manner; it may be decades away. The AU appears to be headed in that direction but I believe (maybe I am mistaken) the EU is unique in that respect. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
    When we write the ITN/R line item, perhaps we can leave it general like "Results of the general election of the parliament and /or president (head) of a supranational organization with at least semi-sovereign powers". This still means the EU but it leaves it open ended. Note the 2 qualifying criteria: (1) holds general elections; (2) holds at least semi-sovereign powers". I am not sure though "at least semi-sovereign" is correct term or not. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd just add the EC president. There is no other supranational political union of an importance comparable to that of the EU. Sandstein 10:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Sandstein. If elections to the head of one or more other supranational political unions get consensus for posting via a normal nomination we can add them at that time. Only if we get more than 3 or 4 such is it going to be worth coming up with wording beyond listing them individually, and I can't imagine that point arriving in the next few years at least. Thryduulf (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: There are 2 EC Presidents (European Commission and European Council) and both attend events like the G7. Perhaps we should include both? Tlhslobus (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Landers and artificial impactors

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Propose adding the "Successful landing and intentional or unintentional crash of spacecraft on non-terrestrial celestial body" to ITN/R.

  • Support as nom. These events are demonstrably notable historic events either successful or unsuccessful. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, treat individually. These events will only become more frequent. Not all are equally newsworthy. Sandstein 10:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Instead of adding a new line, I would simply reinterpret or reword the existing space probes line, perhaps to say(my proposed change in bold) "Arrival of spacecraft (to lunar orbit and beyond) at their destinations, successfully or otherwise". Travel to the moon and beyond is still rare. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
    • This is reasonable but we should be clear that we should talk about "ultimate" designations. In the case of the Indian probe, it did successfully get into orbit around the moon (and that mission will continue), but the ultimate destination was on the moon, so the orbit achievement would not be ITNR. Obvious exceptions would be for something like, if we ever did another Voyager, which has no ultimate destination, but its arrival at key astronomical bodies would be likely ITN. --Masem (t) 16:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Fair point. 331dot (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Sandstein but with a caution that this may let WP:BIAS run rife. Solo Samaritan (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment the bullet point at least needs to be clarified to differentiate between orbiter, soft-lander, and impacter, and then differentiate between success and failure. For ITNR auto-relevancy, I would guess, in order of difficulty/frequency: successful soft landing, unsuccessful soft landing, successful orbiter, unsuccessful orbiter, and no one really does impacters anymore so it isn't really relevant. I would probably draw the line at successful orbiter, or unsuccessful soft landing. Does this cover most of the cases we need to consider? Thoughts? Kees08 (Talk) 16:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
    • The latest impactor I am aware of was LCROSS on October 9, 2009, however Double Asteroid Redirection Test is scheduled to impact 65803 Didymos on September 27, 2022. TompaDompa (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Hayabusa2 fired an impact experiment into asteroid Ryugu in April 2019, and Beresheet accidentally impacted in the same month. Schiaparelli EDM impacted in 2016. Modest Genius talk 10:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
        • I see. I was not aware that Hayabusa2 had an impactor, only that it had a lander. I don't think unintended impacts (otherwise simply known as a crash) really count as impactors. TompaDompa (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I thought this was already covered by the existing entry "Arrival of probes (to lunar orbit and beyond) at their destinations". If that's not sufficiently clear, I support changing 'probe' to 'spacecraft'. Modest Genius talk 10:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I thought so as well. 331dot (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The whole space section is a clusterfork: every launch failure qualifies, but only some launch successes do. I remember a debate where a lunar orbiter crashed into the moon, and we weren't sure if that qualified as "arriving at its destination." GreatCaesarsGhost 19:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Once every 2 years for something impactful worldwide. (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Is this suggesting to add any PHEIC as ITN/R? If so, I oppose. The first reason: not a recurring event. Kingsif (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Without offering a specific opinion on this, ITNR is also for listing events where it is believed notability would never be at issue. The event does not have to occur on a regular basis; see the space exploration section of the list, for example. 331dot (talk) 12:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
It is a recurring event, just not a regular one. Similar examples which are already on the list include the discovery of new elements and all of the space items. It's within scope for ITNR. Modest Genius talk 12:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think we have enough examples to be sure of this. Not downplaying the importance when this is announced, but it may a "too little too late" situation depending how the story breaks (eg to me, when they announced this for Wuhan, it was like "Well, duh..." and didn't think it news worthy. Further, unlike national public emergencies, where special governmental powers come into effect, this only means that there should be an intensification of global efforts to combat it, but still require participation and creates no forced action. But again, I think this all depends on context, and thus would not make it an ITNR but one to consider for posting when it happens. --Masem (t) 17:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with Masem's analysis. In addition, ITNR is not meant to capture all situations. The fact that it generates immense public interest/awreness this year does not mean it'll do in the next say 5 or 10 years, unlike for example FIFA World cup or heads of state elections. So it's fine where it's now, there's not any difficulty in discussing merit of its posting whenever the need arises. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Prior to coronavirus, did we post the PHEICs in 2014-19? I seem to remember seeing ebola, but not the others. If not, we should wait to see if subsequent PHEICs pass ITN/C without difficulty. At present I don't think they would sail through every time. Modest Genius talk 12:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think we need ITNR for this, they're unpredictable, infrequent, and quickly build consensus to post. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion: Replace Filmfare Awards with National Film Awards

Filmfare Awards are awarded only for Hindi films. While it remains one of the more popular film industries in India, it's far from the only one to flourish given the linguistic diversity in the country. I'd suggest replacing it with the National Film Awards, which are awarded to films in all the 22 national languages of India. (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  • The most recent NFA is very light on citations. I think you would find a welcome audience for this at ITNC if the article is brought up to scratch. Some would say we should not publish ANOTHER Indian film award, but I don't believe actually publish Filmfare regularly. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The results of general elections

Do we need additional clarity on what constitutes "results?" I believe it is ITN/R to post when the voting count/seat allocation is determined. While there have been prior noms where the lack of a majority have inspired a handful of "wait for government to form" votes, the nom for Ireland is next level. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Didn't one of the low countries take a year and a half to form a government. To keep it simple, we can ITN/R the election, and consider government formations on a case by case. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed addition: ICC Women's T20 World Cup

With the recent nomination successfully posted, I'm nominating that the ICC Women's T20 World Cup be added to ITN/R alongside the men's variant. (Note: I outlined the previous history of this tournament at ITN during the March 2020 nomination) – Ianblair23 (talk) 13:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC) ​pinging. – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Weak oppose. I'm sympathetic to the desire to post more women's sports, and women's cricket has grown substantially over the last decade. However, media attention remains overwhelmingly on the men's game, and when women's cricket is reported it is usually the Test or ODI formats, which makes sense, as they're more prestigious than T20. The Women's World Cup (ODI, played since the 1970s) certainly attracts enough attention to merit being listed, but the T20 equivalent (began in 2009, only a stand-alone competition since 2018) is much less prominent. Only once has ITN/C approved the women's T20 as a stand-alone story (separate from the men's), and that was this year with only three support !votes. I think I would have opposed if I had been around, both on lack of significance and lack of prose in the article. That's not the successful ITN/C track record we usually require before adding an item to ITNR. I suggest we see how the next couple of stand-alone women's tournaments fare and leave them to ITN/C for now. Modest Genius talk 12:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Proposed substitution: Replace Belmont Stakes with Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Racing (United States)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is more a clarification than a change, but we should remove Belmont Stakes and replace it with "the winner of the US Triple Crown." The current entry has sparked some debate due to the reordering of the races for 2020. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  • The Kentucky Derby is notable on its own and gets attention as the leadoff of the Triple Crown. We wouldn't be having this discussion if we were talking about the Derby and not the Belmont(which is usually last, and had never been first before this year). 331dot (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • As for the Triple Crown itself, the Belmont(when last is as typical) is notable if the Triple Crown is at stake- whether the horse in contention wins or not. 331dot (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove and replace per nom as was the original intent of the discussion in the archives, yet which explicitly did not have consensus before this modification was made back in 2014. The Belmont is not individually notable to ITNR level. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
The Belmont is not only notable when the TC is won- its highest attendance was in 2004 when 130,000 watched Smarty Jones lose the TC. I agree the Belmont is not notable when the TC is not at stake. 331dot (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Lots of people watch lots of sporting events. That's not notable enough for ITNR. I'm obviously not suggesting it's not notable per se. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thank you 331dot (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support this clarification. The intent was to add the Triple Crown to ITNR, which just happened to be awarded at Belmont, not the Belmont race independently. I don't think we should post it unless the Triple Crown is won - near misses aren't significant enough. Modest Genius talk 15:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
So are we posting the occurrence of the TC or the result? A TC being at stake gets a great deal of attention(more so when it had been awhile since the last winner, but it still does) for merely being at stake. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Posting the occurrence, not the crystal-balling of it. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
It wouldn't be us doing the crystal balling, but the coverage of the event. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
The Belmont is more exciting BEFOREHAND when the horse who won the first two contests it. But you are suggesting we post the result (AFTER) when a different horse wins. That is not remotely interesting. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
No, I'm saying go back to the original intent, that the Belmont gets posted when and only when it's the third of a successful Triple Crown. Posting events before they happen is never an ITNR consideration. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
We're on the same page, TRM. I was directing that at 331dot, who seemed to be in favor of posting either outcome. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
My reading of it is that the *intent* is that we post the conclusion of the final race when the triple crown is at stake. Won/Lost. If the first two races have different winners, then obviously for the third the TC is not at stake and we dont post it. And if the TC is at stake, there is no point in posting it before the outcome (successful or not) of the third is concluded. Then we post it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree although the Kentucky Derby is notable on its own as a race, even if it weren't associated with the TC. 331dot (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, we have a consensus, albeit from 2010, that we can point to that says the community agrees Kentucky Derby can be ITNR. But we never had one for Belmont. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree with that assessment, and think that there is probably general agreement that winning the TC should be ITNR. It's if the mere occurrence of a TC attempt is ITNR that is at issue here. 331dot (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as long as this doesn't affect the Kentucky Derby, which I think is notable enough in its own right for ITNR.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. I also personally believe that the Breeders' Cup Classic should be ITNR in addition to, or, if necessary to appease the "too many sports" crowd, instead of the Kentucky Derby for a number of reasons, but we don't need more arguing about horse racing at ITN right now. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The original wording was "If/When there is a another Triple Crown Winner", and it kept the same meaning for seven and a half years until it was changed, without discussion that I can find, to "Belmont Stakes (only if it is part of a Triple Crown)". Change it back, unless there's a positive consensus otherwise. —Cryptic 02:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Club World Cup

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add the FIFA Club World Cup to Association Football/Club competitions. It's the club-equivalent to the World Cup, it is one of the most-watched competitions in the sport (though admittedly probably just behind all the current ITN/Rs for it), and we already have several national (Premiere League, La Liga) and continental (UEFA Cup, Copa Libertadores) club competitions listed - why not the biggest of them all? As seen with this year's article and final match article, it's a competition that also produces nice updates with prose and maps and references. Kingsif (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - Most important football club competition in the world. It may be not "that important" in Europe, but it's very important in Latin America, Asia, Africa and other continents.--SirEdimon (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Soccer is plenty represented on ITN/R and I don't see how "club competitions" are of sufficient importance to add because you haven't suggested why "the club-equivalent to the World Cup" merits inclusion. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Muboshgu, we already have club competitions that are theoretically of less importance than this one. Examples that are current ITN/R events already listed above, i.e. the Premiere League, which includes around a dozen English clubs. Kingsif (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
    Kingsif, that doesn't tell me why this would be worth adding. As a comparable example, in baseball, the winners of the club leagues in Australia, China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan used to face off in the Asia Series. The Japan Series is ITN/R, and the Korean Series has an argument to be added, but the Asia Series had not been considered worthy to even nominate, prior to its dissolution. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I guess I can say that the Club World Cup symbolizes excellence in association football as well as its management; beyond national ties and certain countries having massive funding for national squads, building a team of the best players and coaching from around the world is arguably a more impressive feat. But, as with all events at ITN, I want people to vote on their view of the significance's merit. Kingsif (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "the Club World Cup symbolizes excellence in association football as well as its management; beyond national ties and certain countries having massive funding for national squads, building a team of the best players..." Doesn't the argument of (relatively) massive funding also apply at club level as well as national, if not more so, particularly for those clubs likely to succeed in this competition? Can't imagine my local suburban club, with almost no funding, ever winning it, no matter how well managed it might be. Countries can't so easily buy players to win the World Cup. HiLo48 (talk) 04:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As of now, there is no consensus at ITNC to post this year's competition. ITNR is not a way to bypass consensus at ITNC. Calidum 00:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Calidum: I suggest you strike that last comment for not AGF. Also, as a separate discussion, your reason to oppose seems irrelevant. Kingsif (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
You started this thread eight minutes after voting in the ITNC discussion. The connection seems obvious. Calidum 00:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
In that comment I literally said (to the effect of) 'where can I start an ITN/R discussion because I'm surprised this isn't there'. That's all there is to it. I suppose you also saw that I didn't nominate the blurb and I have not disputed its position or tried to argue in the ITNC discussion. The "connection" is in your mind alone. ETA: I'm honestly deeply offended that you'd assume from nowhere that I was doing that. Kingsif (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Calidum, you should read WP:AGF.--SirEdimon (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose given that consensus is trending against this at ITNC, it would be very, very odd to make it ITNR. Lepricavark (talk) 05:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't consider the reasoning for some of those ITNC opposes to be relevant here, though. Two are saying there's too much other association football posted, one is per quality. I accept the view, but not the reasoning, based on this. And the ITNC is a separate discussion. Kingsif (talk) 05:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I am minded to oppose the current ITN nomination but just held off since it's clearly trending towards no consensus. It certainly does not make sense however to add it to ITNR, since being in ITNR list would be used as argument point in ITNC. Adding articles to ITNR should be in the reverse. Get something regularly nominated/and posted in ITNC with high quality article, then use that to argue for inclusion in ITNR. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose As much as FIFA would like it to be the most important club competition, it isn't, whether you measure it by viewing figures or media attention. And per Ammarpad, it would need a history of regularly being posted before being added to ITN/R.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for these, guys, this makes sense. Kingsif (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree that it would make no sense to have this as ITNR if it can't win support for an individual nom at ITN, as currently looks like being the case at present. But for future reference, especially when the new 24 team format comes in in 2021, I think the bar is being set too high with comments such as "it would need a history of regularly being posted before being added to ITN/R." If the thing is a success in 2021, and is nominated and posted, then I see no need or justification for having to wait another perhaps 4 to 16 years before having another go at getting it into ITNR. However I will now oppose the current nomination per this comment. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm not saying it needs to be posted five years in a row to make ITNR, but once or twice would be nice. Calidum 16:23, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
      • I agree with once, but from 1921 it's supposed to become a 4-yearly event, so even twice becomes a long wait, so it seems reasonable to at least allow discussion of adding it to ITNR after the first successful posting. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my above comment. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless you want to drop the continental club championships from ITNR in place of the FIFA one in which case I'd support. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's effectively a friendly tournament that fans and the media only pays attention to if one of their country's teams wins it. Despite FIFA's attempts to turn the CWC into something significant, it's still far less important than the Champions League or Copa Libertadores. Modest Genius talk 13:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It's not effectively a friendly tournament. All the teams brought their main squad this year, including Liverpool F.C.. It may not be "that important" in Europe, but outside Europe, it's a very important tournament and it's way more important than Libertadores. Flamengo (or any Latin American soccer club) would give their life to win a CWC. This tournament pretty much monopolized the Brazilian press coverage and the conversation among common people in the country. If you think Copa Libertadores is more important than CWC, than you don't know anything about Latin American soccer.--SirEdimon (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I admit I'm not familiar with domestic interest in South America; I'm surprised that they value the new FIFA competition over the long-established continental one. Your logic about first teams is flawed though: Liverpool also played their first team in the FA Community Shield but that doesn't change the fact that English commentators regard it as a "glorified friendly", even if outsiders think it's significant. Modest Genius talk 17:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose a bit of a running joke in most places, a tiny handful of games and only Latin America cares about the result. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support- As the Club World Cup is actually expanding soon and will be replacing the Confederations Cup, which itself was a borderline major international tournament, it will likely be receiving more attention and coverage in the future and should definitely pass the ITN threshold then. Though I personally believe that it already does meet this threshold and therefore support this nomination, I also wouldn't object to waiting to see if the expanded tournament passes ITN/C first before adding to ITN/R. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 05:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.